Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Because that would just be a different way of trying to say it's natural. Don't equivocate.

Yes but still, it can be taken that religions can also have natural basis which is expressed in a different way but still maintaining the sense. It is very important in understanding the cause and effect, related to any religion. Basis of few religion can be natural or prime whereas of other social or gross which can influence its followers accordingly. Other topic subject.

Hunting in a time of plenty is a net energy gain. Predators only have to conserve energy for the hunt when the hunt is prolonged due to scarcity. Once again, cause and effect -- and not a viable argument for ascetism being natural.

MPOVs can be there on every non absolute point. We need to better understand evolutionary outcome from availability of means in excess, normal or deficient. Evolutionary or inherent angle is very important for it not just temporary angle. We prefer good pedigrees--so develop and opt these. This aspect appear to have big relevance in developing good, normal and bad nature on any being and can be discussed in a separate topic. Such evolutionary or inherent acquisitions may also justify live & let live and might is right.

 

[Kumar]

An astute observation. I would go on to say that his definitions of "natural" and "unnatural" derive from his religion, not from how everyone else uses the word. He has been told that his religion derives from nature and is somehow in harmony with it. Hence he cannot distinguish between his religious beliefs and facts.

It is in someway is an insult to me. First PETA now one religion. I just base on somewhat universal validity not on my personal choice. It had already cleared by me.

 

[Kumar]

He likes to use religion to bolster his arguments, so he needs religion to be "natural", and not just some human invention. Human inventions are bad, as far as Kumar is concerned.

Why can't a religion or some part of it or any other thing be derived from nature and presented accordingly in same or different way? Just concentrate on sense not on entity.

Whether nature esp basic is odd, harsh or cruel?

 

[Mojo]

Why can't a religion or some part of it or any other thing be derived from nature and presented accordingly in same or different way?

Because Gods don't exist.

Whether nature esp basic is odd, harsh or cruel?

It's just the way things are. It isn't an entity that is capable of cruelty.

 

[Peregrinus]

Kumar,

The only thing you accomplish in these threads is to afford mild entertainment.

 

[fagin]

Except it's become like watching repeats of repeats.

 

[Kumar]

Because Gods don't exist.




It's just the way things are. It isn't an entity that is capable of cruelty.

God, is not the matter of these discussion esp. when we are unable to define HIM suitably--whether an entity or concept.

I am trying to understand nature's link with religion. Yes, Nature should be prime to religion, religion should have derived some rules of nature from nature only not opposite.

Whatever commonly happen in nature should be natural and whatever done in society/civility/humanity should be social(I say it as current/gross nature's rules). So whoever derived its rules out of these two states and behave accordingly should be justified in natural or social sense. May it be violence or peace related.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,

The only thing you accomplish in these threads is to afford mild entertainment.

Whether I am relaxing you? It is also not a small thing. Probably, you are gaining energy due to it. Thank to me. However, try to understand the sense/logic from whatever I mentioned in my all topics. Honest advice.

 

[Kumar]

Except it's become like watching repeats of repeats.

"Try Try again with dedication, you can gain".

 

[Pixel42]

I am trying to understand nature's link with religion.

Why are you assuming there is a link?

What form would such a link take?

What evidence would support the existence of such a link?

 

[Mojo]

God, is not the matter of these discussion esp. when we are unable to define HIM suitably--whether an entity or concept.

I am trying to understand nature's link with religion.

Nature has exactly the same relationship to religion as it does with any other type of fiction or mythology.

Whatever commonly happen in nature should be natural and whatever done in society/civility/humanity should be social(I say it as current/gross nature's rules). So whoever derived its rules out of these two states and behave accordingly should be justified in natural or social sense.

The social behaviour of humans is part of nature, but the rules they make up are not natural laws. If you have the option of not obeying a rule, it is not one of "nature's rules".

May it be violence or peace related.

Careful! You forgot to misspell "violence".

 

[Kumar]

Why are you assuming there is a link?

What form would such a link take?

What evidence would support the existence of such a link?

Nature being prime to religion, religion would had derived some or all principles from nature, directly or indirectly, not the other way. All principles of all religions may need to be checked for matching with nature's rules in true sense, may those be violence/destruction related or peace/creation related.

 

[fagin]

No, they really don't, but if you want to do the research, knock yourself out and report back with your results.

 

[Kumar]

Nature has exactly the same relationship to religion as it does with any other type of fiction or mythology.




The social behaviour of humans is part of nature, but the rules they make up are not natural laws. If you have the option of not obeying a rule, it is not one of "nature's rules".




Careful! You forgot to misspell "violence".

It may depend on different religions that is, how much any religion derived from nature.

I am unable to get the technical and valid name for such free will of humans, free from all nature's affects. Please tell.

Sorry. "violence" only.

 

[Pixel42]

Nature being prime to religion, religion would had derived some or all principles from nature, directly or indirectly, not the other way.

If by that you mean that nature came before religion, that doesn't necessarily imply that religion is derived from nature. Religions could still have been made up out of whole cloth, with no thought given to nature whatsoever.

All principles of all religions may need to be checked for matching with nature's rules in true sense, may those be violence/destruction related or peace/creation related.

Once again: civilisation was invented to improve on nature. The fact that a made up rule is compatible with nature's rules does not make it a good one; in fact the opposite is more likely to be the case.

 

[Kumar]

If by that you mean that nature came before religion, that doesn't necessarily imply that religion is derived from nature. Religions could still have been made up out of whole cloth, with no thought given to nature whatsoever.

Still it can also imply that religion is derived from nature partly or fully. Both sided approach. However I am unable to justyfy man-made when man himself is nature-made.

Once again: civilisation was invented to improve on nature. The fact that a made up rule is compatible with nature's rules does not make it a good one; in fact the opposite is more likely to be the case.

There can be some difference in above. Civilisation was invented by man or got invented by nature to fulfill some of its needs.

 

[Mojo]

"Try Try again with dedication, you can gain".

I feel this made story is also needed here
for better understanding:

A man had a headache. Basing his reasoning on homoeopathic principles, he decided to cure it by banging his head on a table.



He found that his headache had worsened. He thought, "try, try again with dedication, you can gain."



After a few hours of this, not only did he still have a headache, but he was now also suffering from concussion.

"Try, try again with dedication, you will gain," he thought.



Thoroughly concussed, mildly brain damaged, and still suffering from a headache, he decided that this course of action had concluded to his satisfaction.

 

[Pixel42]

Still it can also imply that religion is derived from nature partly or fully. Both sided approach. However I am unable to justyfy man-made when man himself is nature-made.

What you can or cannot justify is irrelevant to what did or did not happen.

Human beings are free and able to decide that they don't like nature's rules, and to therefore make up some of their own to live by.

There can be some difference in above. Civilisation was invented by man or got invented by nature to fulfill some of its needs.

Nature can no more intentionally invent something than it can be intentionally cruel or compassionate. Nature has no needs.

 

[Kumar]

I feel this made story is also needed here
for better understanding:

A man had a headache. Basing his reasoning on homoeopathic principles, he decided to cure it by banging his head on a table.



He found that his headache had worsened. He thought, "try, try again with dedication, you can gain."



After a few hours of this, not only did he still have a headache, but he was now also suffering from concussion.

"Try, try again with dedication, you will gain," he thought.



Thoroughly concussed, mildly brain damaged, and still suffering from a headache, he decided that this course of action had concluded to his satisfaction.

Made story should not be fact.

 

[Kumar]

What you can or cannot justify is irrelevant to what did or did not happen.

Human beings are free and able to decide that they don't like nature's rules, and to therefore make up some of their own to live by.


Nature can no more intentionally invent something than it can be intentionally cruel or compassionate. Nature has no needs.

That mean, you support human's supremacy over nature?